Junio C Hamano wrote: > Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > "brian m. carlson" <sandals@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > >> I agree that in many cases we can effectively rephrase to avoid needing > >> to do this, but if we acknowledge that sometimes we will need to write > >> using third-person personal pronouns in some cases, it's worth > >> documenting what those should be. > > > > I think we've heard enough from both sides and there probably is not > > misunderstanding among the folks, even though there are differences > > of opinions. > > > > I would like to consider that the last draft I did [*1*] based on > > earlier suggestions by Derrick and Ævar would be a reasonable middle > > ground. > > > > I'll go mostly offline next week---I'd notice if the list came up > > with a vastly different concensus when I come back, but hopefully > > not ;-) > > Well, I misspoke. If the list reached a consensus while I was away, > then that would have been a happy outcome, whether it was close to, > or vastly different from, the one I suggested. > > In any case, I haven't even started to try catching up with the list > traffic last week, so hopefully I'll see soon enough what you folks > decided (or not). I took "I think we've heard enough" as "don't discuss about this anymore". And judging from the lack of responses from oher people I think others did interpret it in a similar vein. I still haven't seen a single argument as to why the fixes in the wording have to be necessarily tied to an update in the guidelines, so I don't see why would have changed my mind. They are orthogonal. -- Felipe Contreras
